The bid for a No. 1 seed

[pfrduke]

When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

6, 2, and 2. The point of your useless observation being?

[theAlaskanBear]

A significant part of me wants to be stiffed by the committee so we (1) don't have the expectations associated with a #1 seed and (2) we have a chip on our shoulder about getting stiffed

Is it easier to play with a chip on your shoulder as the number two seed (number 5 overall) or as a #1 seed who gets badmouthed in the media and by pundits as the weakest 1 and undeserving? Because I would make the case for the second.

Now, if you are considering matchups, thats a different story, and a reasonable reason to want a #2. But to think a #2 seed would magically motivate this team more than a #1 is silly. This team, these players, have not had much success in the NCAA tourney, and I think its safe to say they are hungry and ready to bring it no matter what seed they get.

[Jumbo]

When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

What does that even mean?

[Jumbo]

In all honesty is it that important to land a #1 seed? I rather have a #2 with a #1 Kentucky in my bracket than say a #1 with a #2 MSU with a #3 K-state.

As I was saying, though, it would be virtually impossible to end up as a #2 seed with Kentucky as the #1 (or Kansas, for that matter) unless at least one of the 4 Big East teams drops below the #2 line.

Also, the key to the #1 scenario you described above is that it's either/or MSU/K-State, not both, in a potential regional final. If you end up as a #2, on the other hand, there's a strong likelihood you'd have to go through a team like K-State in the Sweet 16.

[DevilHorns]

As I was saying, though, it would be virtually impossible to end up as a #2 seed with Kentucky as the #1 (or Kansas, for that matter) unless at least one of the 4 Big East teams drops below the #2 line.

Also, the key to the #1 scenario you described above is that it's either/or MSU/K-State, not both, in a potential regional final. If you end up as a #2, on the other hand, there's a strong likelihood you'd have to go through a team like K-State in the Sweet 16.

You're right about the scenarios that I didn't really think through, but I was simply trying to make a broader point since there's too much season left to be able to accurately predict seeds. My point was that its about matchups and that though a #1 seed implies the easiest route to the final 4, its not necessarily so depending on how each individual team matches up.

In the end its one game at a time, one matchup at a time, and so, the value of a #1 seed may be overblown.

[Jumbo]

I'm with Blue in the Face. A #1 seed is nice, but if relative strengths are at selection time what they are now, Duke would be perceived as undeserving (to get a #1 seed). Add to it our recent tourney history of not going particularly deep, and the burden of expectations becomes heavy (at least it does for us fans - I know the team will do its best always). I would rather us be perceived as getting the seed we earn, and going from there. If I thought the team would play different if we were slighted by a lower-than-deserved seed, then, yeah, let's play with a chip on our shoulder and prove everyone wrong. But I can't help but suspect that's a bigger factor for fans than the team itself. Sure, some teams play the "chip on shoulder" card, but that doesn't necessarily work as a strategy. [You notice who in that situation wins, and then in hindsight attribute it to the chip. Those who lose despite a chip are judged to have been justly slighted. Attribution bias I guess]

I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed. And even if Duke loses, say, one more regular season game and wins the ACC Tourney, you're looking at 29-5 with 13 wins out of 14 games to close the season. Again, that's an incredibly strong resume, and that's not even taking into account the fact that all of Duke's computer rankings should be fantastic in that scenario (Duke is already far better in every computer ranking than in either poll.

I wonder if the "perception" issue isn't more of a question of Duke's own fans having lingering concerns after a couple of losses (such as the Georgetown game) and having some lingering feelings of being "undeserving" after a couple of years of struggling in the tourney. (As an aside, when a #3 beats a #2, it's hardly an upset, so I don't really understand the complaints about not living up to expectations last season.) Because we, as Duke fans, don't follow other schools as closely with the same level of scrutiny, we're far more willing to overlook similar stumbles. The point is, regadless, Duke is very much in the running for a top seed and earning that seed does include an inherent advantage in the quality of team you should face in each round. And wouldn't it be nice if this is the year where Duke's bracket finally breaks in its favor, with a few other top seeds getting upset?

And the great thing about all of this is that Duke gets to settle everything on the court. If the team really is deserving of a No. 1 seed, it will go out and grab it. A win today could go a long way toward helping that cause, and it's what I'm most concerned about right now.

[jv001]

I know that good seeding is important but players improving over these next 7games is more important. I think that was what Coach K was talking about in the unc postgame interview. He mentioned coaching this team like he did some of his 1980's teams. Mason had his best game in ACC competition, Dre and Ryan got more minutes in the last couple of games in a while. I'm looking for more improvement today against the twerps. Go Duke!

[Duvall]

I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed.

Unfortunately, most of the commentary on the NCAA Tournament won't be coming from semi-rational people, it'll be coming from sportswriters.

Of course there would be widespread criticism of the committee if it were to award a #1 seed to a 30-4 or 29-5 Duke team. Indeed, I suspect it would be the prevailing view. We would hear a lot about the lack of elite teams in the ACC, and nothing about the league's strength top-to-bottom.

The good news is that it wouldn't matter, even a little bit.

[Jumbo]

Unfortunately, most of the commentary on the NCAA Tournament won't be coming from semi-rational people, it'll be coming from sportswriters.

Of course there would be widespread criticism of the committee if it were to award a #1 seed to a 30-4 or 29-5 Duke team. Indeed, I suspect it would be the prevailing view. We would hear a lot about the lack of elite teams in the ACC, and nothing about the league's strength top-to-bottom.

The good news is that it wouldn't matter, even a little bit.

And, meanwhile, Duke's case is helped a bit more with losses by Syracuse and Georgetown today. And seeing as they'll meet on Thursday, someone's going to lose again. It will be interesting seeing how much the Big East teams beat up on each other down the stretch, and whether that opens up a No. 1 seed. At this point, given the relative weakness of Kansas' remaining Big 12 schedule and what Kentucky has left in the SEC, it's hard to see either team falling off the top line.

[moonpie23]

uk has 3 possible traps @vandy, @tenn and the rematch with s carolina...from what i saw with them against Tenn...those could all be L's.


not predicting, just pointing out..


i think kansas finishes strong...

[Jumbo]

uk has 3 possible traps @vandy, @tenn and the rematch with s carolina...from what i saw with them against Tenn...those could all be L's.


not predicting, just pointing out..


i think kansas finishes strong...

I don't even think the two road games are trap games -- those are good teams and I expect one to beat UK, if not both. But I don't see any way UK loses at home against South Carolina or finishes the regular season with more than 3 losses. Now, if Duke somehow finished with only 4 losses and UK finished with 3, who would be more deserving? IMO, Duke, by far -- the schedule strength and computer rankings are quite stark. Still, I'm not sure it would work out in Duke's favor.

[MChambers]

I don't even think the two road games are trap games -- those are good teams and I expect one to beat UK, if not both. But I don't see any way UK loses at home against South Carolina or finishes the regular season with more than 3 losses. Now, if Duke somehow finished with only 4 losses and UK finished with 3, who would be more deserving? IMO, Duke, by far -- the schedule strength and computer rankings are quite stark. Still, I'm not sure it would work out in Duke's favor.

I agree with you, but let's say UK loses @Vandy and @Tenn, and then loses in the SEC tourney, and Duke wins out. So there is a chance, but it's not probably, just possible.

[Duvall]

And, meanwhile, Duke's case is helped a bit more with losses by Syracuse and Georgetown today. And seeing as they'll meet on Thursday, someone's going to lose again. It will be interesting seeing how much the Big East teams beat up on each other down the stretch, and whether that opens up a No. 1 seed. At this point, given the relative weakness of Kansas' remaining Big 12 schedule and what Kentucky has left in the SEC, it's hard to see either team falling off the top line.

Finishing stretches for this week's AP top ten, some of whom probably fell out of consideration this week:

Kansas: @Texas A&M, Colorado, Oklahoma, @Oklahoma State, Kansas State, @ Missouri
Syracuse: @Georgetown, @Providence, Villanova, St. John's, @Louisville
Kentucky: @Mississippi State, @Vanderbilt, South Carolina, @Tennessee, @Georgia, Florida
Villanova: Connecticut, @Pittsburgh, South Florida, @Syracuse, @Cincinnati, West Virginia
West Virginia:@Providence, Seton Hall, @Connecticut, Cincinnati, Georgetown, @Villanova
Purdue: @Ohio State, Illinois, @Minneota, Michigan State, Indiana, @Penn State
Georgetown: Syracuse, @Louisville, Notre Dame, @West Virginia, Cincinnati
Duke: @Miami (FL), Virginia Tech, Tulsa, @Virginia, @Maryland, North Carolina
Kansas State: Nebraska, @Oklahoma, @Texas Tech, Missouri, @Kansas, Iowa State
Michigan State: @Indiana, Ohio State, @Purdue, Penn State, Michigan

[JaMarcus Russell]

At this point, I think the only teams that have a shot at a 1 seed are Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse, Villanova, Purdue, Duke, and Kansas State. Purdue has games left to play at Ohio State and home against a healthy Michigan State, while KSU has a road game against the Jayhawks.

I think that Duke is in good shape to either grab the last 1 seed or the top 2 seed.

[crimsonandblue]

And, meanwhile, Duke's case is helped a bit more with losses by Syracuse and Georgetown today. And seeing as they'll meet on Thursday, someone's going to lose again. It will be interesting seeing how much the Big East teams beat up on each other down the stretch, and whether that opens up a No. 1 seed. At this point, given the relative weakness of Kansas' remaining Big 12 schedule and what Kentucky has left in the SEC, it's hard to see either team falling off the top line.

Relative weakness being relative to what exactly? Using, for example, Sagarin as of Sunday, KU has roadies at #25 A&M, #44 Ok State, and #22 Mizzou and a home game versus #8 KState. KU's got two probable rummies with Colorado (#103) and Oklahoma (#89) at home.

If we're talking relative to Duke, Duke's got roadies at #58 Miami, #69 UVa, and #27 Maryland, with home games against VaTech (#29), Tulsa (#71) and UNC (#59).

Relative weakness. Really?

[cspan37421]

I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed.

We're in more agreement than I think you realize. If we win out, sure, your point is solid. My point was that if we finished at the same relative strength as we are now, e.g., AP rating of 8, not Pomeroy and not Sagarin, much as I'd like to think we're the 2nd or 3rd best team in the country. [I hope they're right! But yes, the losses to Wisconsin, Ga Tech, and the thumpings at G-Town and NCSU lead me to doubt somewhat].

[Duvall]

Relative weakness being relative to what exactly? Using, for example, Sagarin as of Sunday, KU has roadies at #25 A&M, #44 Ok State, and #22 Mizzou and a home game versus #8 KState. KU's got two probable rummies with Colorado (#103) and Oklahoma (#89) at home.

If we're talking relative to Duke, Duke's got roadies at #58 Miami, #69 UVa, and #27 Maryland, with home games against VaTech (#29), Tulsa (#71) and UNC (#59).

Relative weakness. Really?

I think he meant relative to the Big East finishing schedules.

[crimsonandblue]

I think he meant relative to the Big East finishing schedules.

Still, I'm terrified...

[Jumbo]

Relative weakness being relative to what exactly? Using, for example, Sagarin as of Sunday, KU has roadies at #25 A&M, #44 Ok State, and #22 Mizzou and a home game versus #8 KState. KU's got two probable rummies with Colorado (#103) and Oklahoma (#89) at home.

If we're talking relative to Duke, Duke's got roadies at #58 Miami, #69 UVa, and #27 Maryland, with home games against VaTech (#29), Tulsa (#71) and UNC (#59).

Relative weakness. Really?

What Duvall said -- relative to the Big East. I guess the fact that I don't worry that much about Kansas' remaining schedule (for some reason, the OK State game seems the most difficult to me) shows the kind of faith I have in the Jayhawks as the best team in the country.

[Kedsy]

Has anyone run the numbers on this... what seed tends to win the tourney and at what rate? Im guessing there is not a huge favoritism for a #1 seed to win the tourney vs a #2... though I havent seen the math, just a hunch.

Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 25 tournaments. In that time, there have obviously been 100 #1 seeds and 100 #2 seeds. Of those, 44 #1 seeds have made the Final Four (44%), vs. 22 #2 seeds (22%, meaning twice as many #1s as #2s, for those who don't feel like doing the math). There have been 15 #1 seeds who became champion in those 25 years, against 4 #2 seeds (almost four times more #1s than #2s). So, while I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, I think your hunch is wrong.

It may be that the #1 seeds are that much better than the #2 seeds, or it may be that their path is that much easier, but mathematically if you want to make the Final Four (or be champion) you'd much rather be a #1 than any other seed. It's not even close (or anywhere near close, for that matter).